G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988
Lessons Applicable: When Insurable Interest Must Exist (Insurance)
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
- Azucena Palomo bought a parcel of land and building from Rolando Gonzales and assumed a mortgage of the building in favor of S.S.S. which was insured with S.S.S. Accredited Group of Insurers
- April 19, 1975: Azucena Palomo obtained a loan from Tai Tong Chuache Inc. in the amount of P100,000 and to secure it, the land and building was mortgaged
- June 11, 1975: Pedro Palomo secured a Fire Insurance Policy covering the building for P50,000 with Zenith Insurance Corporation
- July 16, 1975: another Fire Insurance policy was procured from Philippine British Assurance Company, covering the same building for P50,000 and the contents thereof for P70,000
- Before the occurrence of the peril insured against the Palomos had already paid their credit due the
- July 31, 1975: building and the contents were totally razed by fire
- Palomo was able to claim P41,546.79 from Philippine British Assurance Co., P11,877.14 from Zenith Insurance Corporation and P5,936.57 from S.S.S. Group of Accredited Insurers but Travellers Multi-Indemnity refused so it demanded the balance from the other three but they refused so they filed against them
- Insurance Commission, CFI: absolved Travellers on the basis that Arsenio Cua was claiming and NOT Tai Tong Chuache
- Palomo Appealed
- Travellers reasoned that the policy is endorsed to Arsenio Chua, mortgage creditor
- Tai Tong Chuache & Co. filed a complaint in intervention claiming the proceeds of the fire Insurance Policy issued by travellers
- affirmative defense of lack of insurable interest that before the occurrence of the peril insured against the Palomos had already paid their credit due the petitioner
ISSUE: W/N Tai Tong Chuache & Co. has insurable interest
HELD: YES. Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation to pay Tai Tong Chuache & Co.
- when the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed
- The validity of the insurance policy taken b petitioner was not assailed by private respondent. Moreover, petitioner's claim that the loan extended to the Palomos has not yet been paid was corroborated by Azucena Palomo who testified that they are still indebted to herein petitioner
- Chua being a partner of petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company is an agent of the partnership. Being an agent, it is understood that he acted for and in behalf of the firm
- Upon its failure to prove the allegation of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner, Travellers must be held liable
